✒ It's a risky business, the special issue. Imagine being the editor whose 24-page probe into the fish finger industry provokes nothing but half a dozen requests to print the next one-off on softer paper, preferably rolled up and perforated.

But last Friday's gamble paid off. At theguardian.com/g2, our package of stories about Scottish independence pulled in almost 1,000 comments, only one complaining this had left no room for our usual articles about iPads.

More than a third of the posts were about Aditya Chakrabortty's musings on whether an independent Scotland could pay its own way. After the elections that gave the SNP 53% of seats at Hollyrood, Aditya reported, the idea of an independent Scotland has "lurched from counterfactual fantasy to outside possibility". But nationalists have a big economic problem: "In the 70s and 80s, their key task was to figure how best to spend the oil money; nowadays, the challenge is the more fundamental one of how to generate the cash for a post-North Sea future."

boymerlin thought this was missing the point. "This question is not entirely about economics. It is about how we feel to be an appendage to another country whose inhabitants in the main see Scots as somehow being subservient to themselves. You see this in the statements that we, the Scots, should have to ask for English assent to depart from the Union. What are we – medieval serfs or slaves to ask Massa's permission?"

Beziers72 wasn't entirely convinced: "Independence would of course generate an economic boom in one sector: lawyers. Lawyers do love a good, lengthy divorce. A divorce might suit Mum and Dad but the kids ALWAYS get hurt."

But was everyone fighting over the wrong end of the stick? NoSurrenderMonkey thought so. "What are the implications for our military security?" he demanded. "Currently, Scots are privy to UK military secrets. Surely we need to get them out of the loop? I don't mean this in an antagonistic way, just a practical one. Shared defence won't work with differing foreign policy. Anything could happen in the future. The border will need to be militarised."

Surely he wasn't suggesting watch- towers, minefields? Well . . . "It would not just be a matter of checkpoints and passports, but a full militarisation," he insisted. "We can watch each other with binoculars over the barbed wire . . . Scotland will become a foreign country that offers a land route into England: a security liability – and in a much more serious sense than terrorists."

What could possibly be worse than terrorists? JohnCitizen had an idea: "Daleks? AIIIEEEEEE!!!!"

✒On Monday we were in the unusual position of arguing against reading. Or rather, Umberto Eco was. Or, to be boringly accurate, he was claiming you don't need to read every single classic work. "There are more books in the world than hours in which to read them. We are thus deeply influenced by books we haven't read, that we haven't had the time to read. Who has actually read Finnegans Wake – I mean from beginning to end? Who has read the Bible properly, from Genesis to the Apocalypse? And yet I've a fairly accurate notion of what I haven't read."

Back at the website, LordAdonis knew where Eco was coming from: "I got through my literature degree based on this rationale. Glad to know that Umberto's still keeping it real."

The author was just being "more honest than most other people", agreed artwest. "If anyone had read every book one is 'supposed' to have read – not to mention seen every play, viewed every film, visited every gallery and museum, etc, etc, on the 'supposed' list – they would have sod all time to have done anything else, including living a life." But aguers thought there was a hole in that argument: "Er, I think those activities come under the heading 'living a life'. They don't take place in some existential void."

✒Nor, come to that, does waving at traffic. On Tuesday Steven Morris told the story of Moses Peter, who livens up journeys between Torquay and Paignton in Devon. "Carrying a black staff, he walks up and down the A3022 or sits on a bench or the sea wall and waves at the passing traffic. He is variously described as a white wizard, as Merlin, Neptune or as Torbay's 'gentle shepherd'. Now, however, Moses is feeling threatened. There have been complaints that his waving is distracting drivers and the hooting of car horns that his waving prompts is breaching the peace . . ."

On Twitter, @mongsterr knew just who Steven was talking about: "I've seen him many times IRL [in real life]. Dude can really wave." Peter was "mint" according to @TheLakePoets. On the website, pretty much everyone agreed. "It's amazing how something so simple can have such a significant impact on someone's day," summed up TollcrossToi. "My girlfriend has a habit of randomly waving to people when walking past a pub or car at traffic lights, and it's amazing how many people suddenly burst into a smile." Yes, people might think she's odd, but "a smile's a smile, and they're all too rare."

✒But that's enough about weird girlfriends. On Wednesday the subject was wonderful cartoonists. "Hitting 60 gives you plenty of food for thought," wrote Steve Bell , who has now been gracing the Guardian for almost 30 years. "Am I getting cynical in my old age? I don't think so. I have a strong feeling that I was born cynical and that, somewhere within me, a dewy-eyed idealist has always been struggling to get out. I have been lurking under the podium, drawing politicians so closely for so long, that I have almost come to like them . . . These men and women are professional idealists and I take my hat off to them. Then I kick them up the arse."

Long may that arse-kicking continue, was your verdict. For @TomSprints, Steve is a "national treasure". "Some day," agreed Notdarkyet, "our children will proudly tell their grandchildren they walked and talked [at] the same time as the great titan Steve Bell." As for realdelia, she or he managed to both praise the cartoonist and snub every other contributor: "I am quite sure that the ONLY thing in today's Guardian, or any Guardian since 1981, that is certain to survive and connect with people in 100 years' time is the work of Steve Bell. When some poor bloody scholar in 2089 is commissioned to write a centenary history of Thatcher's fall, he or she will look at the Thatcher, Howe and Heseltine Tarzan cartoon and realise that there's little more to be said. There's the cover of the book/ videocast/implant/whatever – the rest is just footnoting."

✒Which brings us to Thursday, and our debate about whether under-13s should be allowed on Facebook. Yes, said Joanna Moorhead: "Of course parents like me worry that means our kids are at risk of both being bullied and of bullying others, but the important thing to realise here is that Facebook is only an arena for bullying, like the school lunch hall or the playground. No one is trying to ban under-13s from those places." No, said Jenni Russell: "Users love the site because they can run their social lives through it, and because they can present themselves to the world in the way they wish to be seen. Those huge attractions have their dark sides. While a user can say anything they like about themselves, others can say anything they like about them. Cyberbullying is a problem no one knows how to fix."

Over at theguardian.com/g2, Leischa thought Jenni was pulling her punches. "I don't think anyone should have a Facebook account. It's the recuperation of our most intimate relationships."

Recuperation in this context seems to have a similar meaning to commodification. All clear now? Then back to the quote: "On Facebook you are not the customer, you are the product."

PowerValve was more relaxed: "Why does the 'no' lobby pander to the negative? Presumably they never had a telephone in the house when young because of dirty phone callers? I encourage my kids to use social networking – it is the inevitable future and will help them keep in contact with others for the rest of their lives, something the older generation hasn't managed. As for making people unhappy, that is also nonsense: I have seen sufficient solidarity on FB for those that have lost pets or even family."

Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But before you all rush over to update your status or poke your friends, why not send us a comment, a tweet or even an old-fashioned email?

Briefly speaking

"The Danes would be wise to consider the historical consequences of banning 'British' products. The opium wars in China immediately spring to mind" –SolidCopy sticks up for Marmite

"If you want to eat bacon and eggs, what is wrong with a full English breakfast? The only French thing in my house is a Le Coq Sportif tracksuit I wear when I go on booze/tobacco runs to Calais" –StrokerAce takes a stand against quiche

"Why only one page for the readers' room this week? Is it the cuts? And should we blame Nick Clegg, DSK, Fred Goodwin or Lars Von Trier?" – Ben McCrory lets G2's editors off the hook